If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

There was also an article on military rape this morning on Yahoo. Now American girls will be required to sign up for a situation in which there is a high probability that they will be raped.

And somehow all the "smart" people in the Pentagon haven't connected the dots to the fact that sexual assaults and harassment has shot up in the military the closer they push females to the front lines and allow them into traditional combat roles.

And somehow all the "smart" people in the Pentagon haven't connected the dots to the fact that sexual assaults and harassment has shot up in the military the closer they push females to the front lines and allow them into traditional combat roles.

Not to mention the fact if they become POW's what that will do to the countries morale when the enemy will parade them out in front of the Samara

Great. We're back to social engineering again. First BJClinton with dont ask, dont tell. Now this.

And little to no discussion by the lefts cheer leaders, the so called news media. How charming. Im sure the institutions of higher indoctrination will 'do their part' too.

First we fill the GOP's top tier with a bunch of cowards so there is virtually no opposition to the lefts agenda, now we put women in combat positions on the front lines and this is supposed to help make ours the toughest military our enemies encounter on the face of the earth? Or is this supposed to "equalize" our engagements in combat?

And what do you suppose the enemy is going to do to our daughters after theyve captured them? And what happens if/when they have to re-introduce the draft? Do you think the majority of Americans are going to want their daughters on the front lines like this?

The far left is destroying the very fabric of our society. And damn proud of it.

I don't care, so long as they can carry and fire that mortar, scale that cliff, lug that heavy-ass bi-pod machine gun, and do all the other stuff that combat soldiers need to do in the course of combat. I don't care if you're Black, white, or pink with purple polka-dots so long as you're combat-effective when you need to be.

The problem is, women CAN'T do all of that stuff as well as their male counterparts. It's simple physiology. Sure, there are lots of women out there who can bulk up and toughen up and they can be just as steely as the next guy down the line, but the simple facts of physiology are that with very little exception, women, no matter how physically fit they are, simply will not be as effective, will not be able to move as well with an 80-lb. ruck on, will not be able to manipulate or maneuver a machine gun with 50 lbs. of ammunition as a man will be able to.

Newsflash for the Obama administration and the Left: women and men are different. Stop trying to pretend this isn't the case.

The inevitable result of this will be lowered standards to meet a quota of women in combat roles, thus ultimately reducing the quality of the American combat soldier all-around. Bad idea.

The vast majority of women cannot meet the physical standards of infantry and armor, but there is another issue. My basic branch was armor, and while the physical standards are greater than people think (loaders have to be able to extract a 40-50 lb round from the ready rack, rotate it 180 degrees and load it into the breech in a space that is roughly the size of a phone booth, in under six seconds, and don't get me started on the weight of the track links), the real issue is that a tank crew is four people. If one of those Soldiers is down due to pregnancy or other medical issues, then the crew is down by 25%. Now, a tank can run with three crewmembers, if the TC does double duty as the loader, but that's one less crew member to do security, maintenance and all of the other details that come with combat. One of the dirty little secrets of women in the military is that they have much higher rates of injury and downtime, even those who meet the male physical standards, because pushing their bodies that hard has consequences. Infantry units tend to have even more issues. A combat ruck can weigh 80 lbs, and with body armor and the rest of the load, a female trooper may end up carrying her own body-weight in equipment. I know infantrymen who are getting knee replacements at 45 (and younger), and women will end up with a far greater rate of injury. Throw in the 25-mile graduation march for Infantry AIT and you're going to lose massive numbers of women during IET, and those women are not going to want to reclassify to another MOS.

Now, throw in the corrosive effects of sexual misconduct and not only do you have Soldiers who physically impact readiness, but whose very presence creates emotional stresses within the unit.

Most of the impetus for this is coming from female officers who feel that their professional chances are hampered by not being allowed to command combat arms units and get that in their resume. I don't have the sense that there are a lot of enlisted women dying to break track on an Abrams or hump mortar tubes and M240Bs on extended dismounts. God forbid something like military utility stand between a West Point woman and her shot at CofS.

I foresee the unintended consequences of this will be a reluctance to put any non-SOCOM boots on the ground anywhere in the world to the point that it'll make Clinton look like Tojo by comparison, and our opposition wasn't too slow-witted in getting an extremely accurate intelligence appreciation of him on that, which led directly to some pretty ugly results.